Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Board backs $409,207.95 Abiquiu hydro plant firewall and office task order after budget overrun

3449102 · May 21, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Los Alamos Board of Public Utilities voted 5–0 May 21 to recommend award of task order AGR22‑18C to GME General Building LLC for fire‑mitigation and office improvements at the Abiquiu Hydroelectric Plant, approving a total project amount of $409,207.95 and reallocating part of El Vado penstock funding to cover the overrun.

The Los Alamos Board of Public Utilities on May 21 voted unanimously to recommend award of task order AGR22‑18C to GME General Building LLC for fire mitigation and modest office additions at the Abiquiu Hydroelectric Plant, approving a total project budget of $409,207.95 and forwarding the recommendation to county council.

The board’s decision followed staff testimony that the work responds to a documented electrical failure at the plant last year in which a motor control center (MCC) failed and created a fire risk. DPU staff said they contracted a loss‑prevention firm after that incident; the firm recommended multiple mitigation options including a concrete barrier, relocating the outside transformer, or installing extra layers of interior fire‑resistant board. Staff reported the chosen approach is to install two overlapping layers of 5/8‑inch gypsum board on the exterior paneling as the primary mitigation, and to add interior improvements including administrative space, a restroom, and a reinforced concrete pad where equipment is stored.

James Martinez, filling in for James Allarut, DPU staff presenter, summarized the options and the chosen mitigation: “They had three recommendations. One of them was to do, like, a concrete barrier wall outside of the facility... the third option was to put two layers of 5/8s gypsum board overlapping each other. So that was the option that we chose.” Martinez said the design also incorporated an admin‑space addition and a concrete equipment pad.

Budget and funding changes: DPU had budgeted $350,000 in the FY25 CIP for the Abiquiu project, but the low bid and final project estimate totaled $409,207.95. Staff said the concrete pad contributed substantially to the overrun, with the pad alone estimated at roughly $64,000. To cover the difference, staff proposed using part of an existing CIP allocation for an El Vado penstock bypass valve (originally budgeted at $95,000) and indicated they would re‑budget the El Vado work into a future fiscal year. Staff said they planned to use about $59,207 of the El Vado penstock bypass valve funds to fill the current shortfall; the board accepted that plan.

Procurement and competition: staff told the board they solicited additional pricing from two other on‑call contractors; one declined to bid and the other did not respond to multiple inquiries, leaving GME as the responsive bidder on the task order. Several board members expressed concern about repeated cost increases on capital projects and noted the difficulty of predicting construction prices given market volatility.

Board action and vote: the board moved and seconded a motion that recommended award of task order AGR22‑18C to GME General Building LLC and requested forwarding to county council for final approval. Roll call recorded Member Hollingsworth — yes; Member Heffner — yes; Member Nockley — yes; Member Schromberg — yes; Member Gibson (Chair) — yes. Outcome: recommendation approved by the board, 5–0.

Implementation and next steps: staff said the award recommendation will be forwarded to county council for approval and that the El Vado penstock bypass valve project will be rebudgeted into fiscal year 2027. Several board members asked staff to reconsider budgeting practices after repeated overruns and to explore whether larger contingencies or different procurement approaches are warranted.

The board’s action does not itself begin construction; final contract award and start dates are contingent on county council approval and completion of required permitting and procurement steps.